[GOAL] Re: Warning From French mathematicians About Gold Open Access Publishing (Article Publishing Charges)

[Stevan Harnad]

On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 3:11 AM, Reckling, Falk, Dr. <Falk.Reckling at fwf.ac.at
> wrote:

> Other mathematicians calculate differently, see the discussion initiated
> by Tim Gowers:
> http://gowers.wordpress.com/2012/07/02/a-new-open-access-venture-from-cambridge-university-press/#more-4356


There seem to be two distinct issues underlying this thread.

*I.* ALTERNATIVE BUSINESS MODELS FOR FUNDING PEER-REVIEWED PUBLISHING
One sub-thread is about whether there is a scalable, sustainable way to
fund peer-reviewed publication other than either user-institution
subscription/license fees or author-institution Gold OA publication fees.

Neither pro-bono services nor subsidies are a funding model; rather they
themselves have funding models -- for other products/services, such as
university infrastructure and personnel or government research funding  --
behind them. These much broader economic issues seem to me too diverse and
complex to be invoked today as a realistic practical "business model" for
peer-reviewed publishing.

We have enough on our plate already, trying to get at least free online
access to peer-reviewed publications, after 20 long years!

For prior discussion on this "business model alternatives" sub-thread
thread see:

"There is no "Platinum" Road to OA"
http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/6442.html

II. ALTERNATIVES TO PEER REVIEWED PUBLISHING
The other sub-thread is about alternatives to standard peer review, such as
2-tiered publishing and open peer commentary.

These too have been often proposed many times in the past decade and a half
in the pages of GOAL's predecessor, the American Scientist Open Access
Forum [AmSci] (including, notably, by a very distinguished mathematician,
who is also an early and eloquent OA advocate, Andrew Odlyzko, and who also
happens to be an expert on the economics of differential pricing!)

Here too, the empirical question is whether there is an alternative to
standard peer review that can deliver at least the same quality and
reliability, and that is scalable and sustainable. So far there is no
evidence of this, but while local experiments, proposals and speculations
continue, we still don't have free online access to most peer-reviewed
research such as it is, today, after 20 long years.

And it is good to remind ourselves that the primary objective of the OA is
to free peer-reviewed research from access-tolls, not to free it from peer
review.

For prior discussions on this "peer review alternatives" sub-thread thread
see:

"Self-Selected Vetting vs. Peer Review: Supplement of Substitute"
http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2341.html

and

"Peer Review Reform Hypothesis Testing"
http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html#msg480

and

"A Note of Caution About 'Reforming the System'"
http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html#msg1170

Stevan Harnad
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120901/6651ffe3/attachment.html